Cited by 54Team Dynamics and PerformanceJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorConstruction Project Management and Performance

The Effect of Interactional Fairness on the Performance of Cross‐Functional Product Development Teams: A Multilevel Mediated Model*

Qiu, Tianjiao, Qualls, William, Bohlmann, Jonathan, Rupp, Deborah E.·2009·Journal of Product Innovation Management

Abstract

Cross‐functional product development teams (CFPDTs) are receiving increasing attention as a fundamental mechanism for achieving greater interfunctional integration in the product development process. However, little is known about how team members' interactional fairness perception—fairness perception based on the quality of interpersonal treatment received from the project manager during the new product development process—affects cross‐functional communication and the performance of CFPDTs. This study examines the effects of interactional fairness on both team members' performance and team performance as a whole. It was predicted that interactional fairness in CFPDTs would significantly affect team members' task performance, both task‐ and person‐focused interpersonal citizenship behaviors, as well as team performance. Additionally, commitment would partially mediate the effects of interactional fairness on these performance outcomes. Analyzing survey responses from two student samples of CFPDTs with hierarchical linear modeling techniques, it was demonstrated that team members' task performance, interpersonal citizenship behavior, and team performance are enhanced when team members are dedicated to both the team and the project, and such dedication is fostered when project managers are fair to team members in an interpersonal way.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00344.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Qiu, T., Qualls, W., Bohlmann, J., & Rupp, D. E.
Affiliations
  • California State University, Long Beach (US)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • North Carolina State University (US)
Corresponding author
Qiu, Tianjiao
Venue
Journal of Product Innovation Management
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-01-28
Volume
26
Issue
2
Pages
173-187
ISSN
  • 0737-6782 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-5885
OpenAlex
W2010744910
Cited by
54
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
4.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Product Innovation Management (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Construction Project Management and Performance
Keywords
interactional justice, team performance, task performance, interpersonal citizenship behavior, organizational commitment, project managers, new product development, interfunctional integration, cross-functional communication, perceived fairness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review